how an atheist found God.

[Galant]

Whilst no-one can really say for sure if there is a god or not Anthony Flew is not really your best example here to show.

The poor man had had dementia for a while (he died in a nursing home suffering from it). He only converted in 2003/04 so it is probable he was suffering dementia already or at least the earliest signs of it.

I concede that I do not and cannot know for certain Flew's mental state at various stages (one might wonder if that could apply to anyone). However, interviews and written statements show that Flew was far from going loopy as many seems to be suggested. I find it a bit shocking and rather 'easy' to say that a man who once was a leading thinker and champion of atheists but who later conceded a necessity for a God only made that concession because he had lost his mind.

When I read the interviews and listen to what he said, he certainly seems coherent. Did he lose some of his mental edge? In truth, I don't know. He seems to be in control of his own thinking though. The issue as to whether he was coerced seems shaky, unclear at best. But true, I don't know for sure. It just seems it comes to easily to people that when Flew in mentioned senile is the plea. Have people even taken read or listened to what he actually said?

Still, Flew aside, my point was to try to show that the lady in the OP's article, whilst perhaps simplistic in her explanation, was still justified in her reasoning. I believe I can do that also by referring to a certain Dr. Stephen Hawking. Now, unless someone wants to cry senility for him too, the fact is that only very recently, after years at the top of the scientific minds, was Hawking able to finally state that the universe doesn't need a God - that is - that belief in God may be unreasonable scientifically. Flipping that around, before that declaration, belief in God was, for him, scientifically reasonable. The crucial point for him was the very same crucial point for the lady in the article - the complexity of the universe and the unlikely nature that it would come about first time, by itself. In the end he has chosen to opt for a 'multiverse' in which such occurrences become more plausible.

Whether or not one agrees with Mr. Hawking, or whether or not he is right, my simple point is this. That if a mind such as Hawking's can allow for the rationality of that argument and only recently move beyond it, surely we cannot therefore accuse other minds of being 'stupid' or irrational, or dismiss the lady's specific point about the complexity of the universe as being such?

[nibbler]

So, tell me this: should God force everyone into Heaven / His presence / be with Him? You clearly don't want any part of Him (because you don't know Him, to be frank), so should He brainwash you into being a believer? I don't think so. If you reject Him, you will be in a place WITHOUT Him. And since He is the source of all goodness, you will be in a place without that. There is no middle, grey area, which is without God and also without the hopelessness and torment of NO God.

I think TheAnimus was talking about people who live and die never knowing anything about God (People in developing countries, say). Send them to Hell then, eh?

[dshepsman]

wIt's much simpler than that. God is a loving God, who doesn't want ANYONE to go to hell / be separate from Him. He is also just.

so how is it that my grandad, who went to synagogue every sabbath, ate kosher, gave to charity, loved his family etc ended up with a form of CJD, and was in pain and misery for the last few weeks of his life?

oh, right... wrong god?

As far as im concerned, the easiest way to, for want of a better word "control" people, especially simple, illiterate folk (as was the case 1000s of years ago) is to say some divine being said it, and if you dont obey, youll be subjucted to lots of bad things.

Also, it serves as a great way of explaining unexplainable things... why does the sun raise in the morning? where did we come from.... etc etc

[EzyRyder]

I concede that I do not and cannot know for certain Flew's mental state at various stages (one might wonder if that could apply to anyone). However, interviews and written statements show that Flew was far from going loopy as many seems to be suggested. I find it a bit shocking and rather 'easy' to say that a man who once was a leading thinker and champion of atheists but who later conceded a necessity for a God only made that concession because he had lost his mind.

When I read the interviews and listen to what he said, he certainly seems coherent. Did he lose some of his mental edge? In truth, I don't know. He seems to be in control of his own thinking though. The issue as to whether he was coerced seems shaky, unclear at best. But true, I don't know for sure. It just seems it comes to easily to people that when Flew in mentioned senile is the plea. Have people even taken read or listened to what he actually said?

Still, Flew aside, my point was to try to show that the lady in the OP's article, whilst perhaps simplistic in her explanation, was still justified in her reasoning. I believe I can do that also by referring to a certain Dr. Stephen Hawking. Now, unless someone wants to cry senility for him too, the fact is that only very recently, after years at the top of the scientific minds, was Hawking able to finally state that the universe doesn't need a God - that is - that belief in God may be unreasonable scientifically. Flipping that around, before that declaration, belief in God was, for him, scientifically reasonable. The crucial point for him was the very same crucial point for the lady in the article - the complexity of the universe and the unlikely nature that it would come about first time, by itself. In the end he has chosen to opt for a 'multiverse' in which such occurrences become more plausible.

Whether or not one agrees with Mr. Hawking, or whether or not he is right, my simple point is this. That if a mind such as Hawking's can allow for the rationality of that argument and only recently move beyond it, surely we cannot therefore accuse other minds of being 'stupid' or irrational, or dismiss the lady's specific point about the complexity of the universe as being such?

I do agree with you there. I was just making the point of Flew - it has been well recorded (and if you look on Secular Web you will find) that there are certain comments that support what I say, that he wasn't in complete control of what he was saying.

In any case I am an agnostic, so its a moot point. I do agree with what you say

[fuddam]

There is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis could have happened of its own accord. Amino acids form naturally and they are the basis of all life really. The DNA system is only omnipresent because it works so well, it's a fantastic system. This is like the "the universe is too perfect to have come about by chance" argument. We only see the DNA system because we are in it. There may have been other 'attempts' at life which failed because they weren't as good as systems for propagation as DNA is. There is plenty of support for it coming around naturally and the head of the human genome project is just one man.

oh, agreed that he's just one man. My belief and faith does not rest in him - it was simply a response to a post that pretty much everyone from an academic background was united in their rejection of Christ etc etc. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.
Likewise, I never said his belief was PROOF. I never try to prove God's existence. BUT I do offer plenty of evidence for it. Different thing.

quote from wiki:
During a debate with the biologist Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation.

let's finish the quote, pliz:

That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."[27]

I'm with Dawkins on this one, and it's one of my problems with Religion. As a scientist, I would love to know the answers to these questions and to just say that anything we don't know or find difficult to explain was done by God is ridiculous and seriously hampers scientific advancement.

As a Christian, recognising that God is responsible for something (eg a law of physics) doesn't mean I don't want to know HOW and WHY. If anything, it prompts me to dig deeper, since there is a knowable truth, and there is discovery and revelation.

The woman in the original post was on that journey, and it led her to God, as it did with Frank Collins, and with CS Lewis. Many atheists simply reject the IDEA of God, and wipe their hands of any further investigation. They don't want to do any further digging because it would mean they'd have to recognise their error, both to themselves and possibly publicly, have to answer to God for their sinfulness, and be held accountable. People, by their very nature (esp men), prefer not to take responsibility for their actions, and to do what they want. Right from Adam down.

[fuddam]

I think TheAnimus was talking about people who live and die never knowing anything about God (People in developing countries, say). Send them to Hell then, eh?

reread what I said: with a loving and just God, that possibility doesn't exist.

[nibbler]

oh, agreed that he's just one man. My belief and faith does not rest in him - it was simply a response to a post that pretty much everyone from an academic background was united in their rejection of Christ etc etc. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.
Likewise, I never said his belief was PROOF. I never try to prove God's existence. BUT I do offer plenty of evidence for it. Different thing.

Read what I said please. I'm now telling you for the second time that I didn't say that everyone "rejected christ" as you aggresively phrase it, I said that almost everyone believed in evolution. It had nothing to do with religion.

let's finish the quote, pliz:

That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."[27]

As a Christian, recognising that God is responsible for something (eg a law of physics) doesn't mean I don't want to know HOW and WHY. If anything, it prompts me to dig deeper, since there is a knowable truth, and there is discovery and revelation.

Very nice, sort of irrelevant as it's just reiterating what he said earlier. It's just another cop out, he's almost saying that we have to stop somewhere and stop explaining things otherwise we violate some sort of trust in god...

The woman in the original post was on that journey, and it led her to God, as it did with Frank Collins, and with CS Lewis. Many atheists simply reject the IDEA of God, and wipe their hands of any further investigation. They don't want to do any further digging because it would mean they'd have to recognise their error, both to themselves and possibly publicly, have to answer to God for their sinfulness, and be held accountable. People, by their very nature (esp men), prefer not to take responsibility for their actions, and to do what they want. Right from Adam down.

Wow, this is incredibly narrow minded of you now. I've done all the digging I need to do to be confident in my own (dis)belief. As I say, I wasn't indoctrinated at birth, I've reached my own conclusions based on logical thinking and looking at the evidence. I'd gladly be proved wrong if God merely took a peek from between the clouds and said to me "look, I'm here". His complete lack of presence is too suspicious to me.

[fuddam]

so how is it that my grandad, who went to synagogue every sabbath, ate kosher, gave to charity, loved his family etc ended up with a form of CJD, and was in pain and misery for the last few weeks of his life?

oh, right... wrong god?

Without getting into a pissing contest, I'll point out that my mother was a Christian all her life, kind, generous, devout etc.

She had cancer for the last 19 years of her life.
She had TEN different cancers
She went through 23+ operations
She spent the last 4 months of her life on oxygen, suffocating from fluid in her lungs from lung cancer.

She died loving God, praising his name with a smile and was more at peace than ever before, albeit she was in great & constant pain.

So, why did she suffer? That is a very common question for the skeptic, BUT only if we consider life to be finite.

As a Christian friend of mine aptly put it: life here is like a burp before a great speech. No-one remembers the burp.

In her suffering, my mother witnessed to many people. She brought reassurance and love to many through her pain. Christ suffered terribly on the cross (and I'm not talking simply about the physical pain), but for a new birth for mankind, and a chance for freedom for all us. The suffering was not the end, but the journey towards something better.

There is MEANING in suffering with Christ, but suffering is terrible all the same.

[nibbler]

reread what I said: with a loving and just God, that possibility doesn't exist.

Ok, but it happens. Ergo God is not loving and Just. Good work there.

I did read what you said, it was what prompted me to reply to your point actually.

[TheAnimus]

reread what I said: with a loving and just God, that possibility doesn't exist.

So without god, I can't be loving, I can't be happy?

So if I don't want to be with him I have to be tortured? Hmm, that makes no rational sense.

I know I'm godless, but I also know I'm kind and loving?

Why then, because I don't want to worship something, which there is no evidence for existing any more than the FSM (which imho, the using of the noodly tentical to create any evidence which suggets he doesn't exist is a better logical concept than any I've heard in Cristianitiy!) does it mean I can't have love? I think I have!

If you think its morally right to treat gays differently to hetrosexuals when it comes to holidaying, then quite frankly your a disgusting person. It then also comes as no surprise to me that you would get off and enjoy, the notion of other people, those people who doubted what you knew to be true, suffering greatly.

Because you still haven't begun to describe how sending people to hell is anything other than the negative symptoyms from my last two posts. I think I'm going to jump out of this and add you to the block list because quite frankly, I don't want to see such intolerant ****e as yours on this forum.

[bledd]

I find agnostics can be more annoying than nut-job christians

I'm a lolist, I just lol at both sides

[EzyRyder]

I find agnostics can be more annoying than nut-job christians

I'm a lolist, I just lol at both sides

Is that your cheap way of calling yourself an ignorant?

[fuddam]

Wow, this is incredibly narrow minded of you now. I've done all the digging I need to do to be confident in my own (dis)belief. As I say, I wasn't indoctrinated at birth, I've reached my own conclusions based on logical thinking and looking at the evidence. I'd gladly be proved wrong if God merely took a peek from between the clouds and said to me "look, I'm here". His complete lack of presence is too suspicious to me.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being narrow minded or willfully ignorant. I can't and won't try to ARGUE you into belief, but I am concerned with the representation of Christ, and the reason I respond on this forum (you'll see I didn't post anything other than the original post for a fair few pages) is to clear up misrepresentations of Him. He doesn't need me to do so, of course. I do it simply because I don't like to see people broadcast untruth, however unwittingly. I'm sure that's why many atheists post, too.

At the same time, it should be pretty common knowledge that people have an agenda, and not many want to risk or damage their reputation once established. I found it most prevalent in academic and professional spheres. Many atheists that I'VE met in person are in a happy position of skepticism, and prefer to stay that way - masters of their own fate, as it were. They are NOT interested in truth so much as following their own path, wherever that might lead. If you're searching for truth and only truth, you neither need nor request my approval but I salute you nonetheless.

[fuddam]

Ok, but it happens. Ergo God is not loving and Just. Good work there.

Where does it happen? How can you claim it?

[EzyRyder]

fuddam,

I await your answer to my post.

[fuddam]

So without god, I can't be loving, I can't be happy?

wow.....

If you reread my posts, you'll see that I mentioned all goodness / love / happiness comes from a single wellspring: God. Whether one knows Him or not, there is one source. So, a person can experience joy, love, happiness without Him, but like anything else on this earth, it is temporary.

So if I don't want to be with him I have to be tortured? Hmm, that makes no rational sense.

if you don't want to be with the source of the love and happiness, you put yourself into a place without it. It is YOUR responsibility.

I know I'm godless, but I also know I'm kind and loving?

here, you are capable of such. I am in no way likening you personally to Hitler, but want to point out that someone routinely lumped with evil was also a loving father. So, even in the worst places, we can see evidence of His character.

But eternity is another place.

Why then, because I don't want to worship something, which there is no evidence for existing any more than the FSM (which imho, the using of the noodly tentical to create any evidence which suggets he doesn't exist is a better logical concept than any I've heard in Cristianitiy!) does it mean I can't have love? I think I have!

see above, and I gave evidence of Christ's love as compared to the existence of the FSM/tooth fairy/Santa in earlier posts. You seem to skip postings.

If you think its morally right to treat gays differently to hetrosexuals when it comes to holidaying, then quite frankly your a disgusting person. It then also comes as no surprise to me that you would get off and enjoy, the notion of other people, those people who doubted what you knew to be true, suffering greatly.

really? wow.
I am a sinner. My wife is a sinner. Everyone I know is a sinner - I don't love them any less because of their sin, but I hate the sin itself. I don't hate homosexuals, or regard them as lesser beings.

In fact, Christ loves sinners so much He let them put Him to death for their sake. Not his. He weeps for his children that condemn themselves, He doesn't celebrate, and neither do I.

Because you still haven't begun to describe how sending people to hell is anything other than the negative symptoyms from my last two posts. I think I'm going to jump out of this and add you to the block list because quite frankly, I don't want to see such intolerant ****e as yours on this forum.

you don't have to like/read/enjoy my posts, but interesting use of your word intolerance. You keep on swearing at me.